Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

Jobs strategy has been the subject of closed-door GOP meetings and strategy sessions. At the request of GOP leaders, freshman Sen. Rob Portman, budget director under George W. Bush, circulated an internal roadmap this week that is intended to serve as a launching pad for a more sweeping economic agenda, which senior Republicans say must include a sharper message and a more aggressive legislative plan.

As a reminder to talk up the connection between spending cuts and jobs creation back home during next week’s recess, the Senate Republican Conference distributed a series of talking points on pocket-sized cards to the 47 GOP senators.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn said there was concern that Republicans weren’t emphasizing the jobs issue in their rhetoric. “People tend to get focused on cuts and spending, but really the ultimate goal is to encourage the private sector to invest and create new jobs.”

“That’s part of what we need to do,” the Texas Republican told POLITICO.

When asked if the GOP needs to be talking more about jobs rather than purely cutting spending, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) replied Thursday: “Absolutely.”

“We have to remind folks about the dire situation that we’re in with the amount of spending that we’ve been engaged in,” he said. “But it’s absolutely correct that there’s a direct connection between that and job creation, and we do need to talk about that as much as we can.”

“The best way for us to make our point is for all 47 of us to go out in all of our speeches and talk about it, so you’ll hear us talking about No. 1 jobs, No. 2 debt,” said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander, the GOP’s point man on the message.

Republicans have struggled to gain significant traction on that message, since the two parties are engaged in a major battle over federal spending. GOP leaders — particularly in the House — have had their hands full in recent weeks in trying to satisfy a relentless band of conservatives eager for a major confrontation with the White House over spending, an issue they believe helped propel them to victory last November.

But Republican leaders are well aware that fears about the economy and jobs far outpoll the next biggest worry among many voters, the $14 trillion national debt.

That was evident in the House Wednesday, when Republican leaders held a jobs forum to show their party’s commitment to the issue — in part a response to a Democratic attack line that the GOP’s budget plan would raise the unemployment rate. In the Senate, where the GOP is in the minority, Republican leaders believe they’re gaining ground in their calls to cut spending but need to make sure it doesn’t drown out their economic message.

At a closed-door Senate GOP retreat in January at the Library of Congress, the jobs issue was front and center, and Alexander asked Portman to make a presentation on the issue. Since then, Portman has been tapped by GOP leaders to be a central figure in the development of a jobs agenda — and that culminated in a detailed list of policy ideas that the freshman unveiled at a closed-door lunch Tuesday.

They can make some headway on their jobs message by actually doing something. So far, all they've done since they took over the House was advance ideological and partisan legislation. There have been no jobs bills, no fiscal stimuli, nothing.

Frankly, just about every major bill that the House has passed in the last three months has destroyed jobs. So unless their mantra was secretly "[Kill] Jobs, [kill] jobs, [kill] jobs" they're not making a very good effort of it.

Perhaps the biggest problem here is that there's very little relationship between the national debt and employment. The relationship is very tangential and marginal in nature, and it's really bizarre (speaking as an economist) that decreasing the debt is approached as a job-creation strategy. It's just not an economically viable strategy.

Sure, there are a variety of reasons you could offer for decreasing the debt... But creating jobs isn't really one of the sound ones.

The Republicans can spend mountains of hours and money trying to brainwash US into believing their cutting is growing the economy but it won't work because it is so obviously not true. Republicans need to quit pretending they are concerned with avoiding "uncertainty" in the markets when they threaten to shut down our government every other week. They are frauds! Their own conservative economic analysts predict the proposed Republican budget cuts, if passed, will also cut up to 800,000 American jobs! Republicans in D.C. are right to be very worried about political blowback concerning their behavior and it is only going to get worse, as D.C. Republicans have already shot down one Democrat-sponsored jobs bill in the Senate and have no intention of voting for any substantial job-growing bill. Republicans only want to deregulate in a way that led to the Great Crash of October 2008 and want to give tax breaks and subsidies to domestic and foreign corporate behemoths. That's their only pathetic job-growth plan. It is nearly spring and Republicans have yet to focus on jobs and are now wasting more time trying to create an effective PR campaign that is to make it look as though they are job-focused! What a bad joke!

THE REPUBLICANS ALREADY KNOW THAT THEIR BUDGET PLANS TO CUT, CUT CUT, -- WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CUTTING FUNDING FOR POLICE, TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS, FBI, TSA AGENST (WHO PROTECT OUR AIRPORTS), AND ALSO CUT BORDER PATROL AGENTS ( WHO PROTECT OUR BORDERS) - COULD RESULT IN UP TO 70,000 JOB LOSES !

I GUESS THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT SO INTERESTED IN BORDER CONTROL ANYMORE SINCE THE REPUBLICAN'S BUDGET WANTS TO CUT BORDER PATROL FUNDING BY $1.13 BILLION, AS WELL AS ELIMINATING 2,828 CUSTOMS AND BORDERS OFFICERS!

AND I GUESS THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT SO INTERESTED IN STOPPING TERRORISTS FROM BLOWING UP PLANES IN THE SKY - SINCE REPUBLICANS WANT TO CUT $500 MILLION CUTS IN SECURITY OPERATIONS : INCLUDING CUTTING $174 MILLION FROM FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS.

SOMEONE SHOULD TELL REPUBLICANS THAT WHEN WE ARE UNDER THREAT OF TERRORIST ATTACKS (AS THE U.S.A ALWAYS IS) -- YOU DO NOT CUT THE FIRST LINES OF DEFENSE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: YOU DO NOT CUT FUNDING FOR POLICE, AND FBI, AND FIREFIGHTERS, AND BORDER PATROL AGENTS, AND TSA AGENTS, AND AIR MARSHALS --- THESE ARE THE FOLKS WHO LOOK OUT FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY HERE AT HOME --

THE REPUBLIACANS ARE BRING STUPID, AND IRRESPONSIBLE FOR CUTTING FUNDING FOR THESE FIRST LINE DEFENDERS !!

I have yet to see the connection between jobs and less taxes OR government spending. I hear that argument all the time, but show me the data that PROVES less taxes produce more jobs or less government spending produces more jobs. Please, I'm dying to find that evidence.

They can make some headway on their jobs message by actually doing something. So far, all they've done since they took over the House was advance ideological and partisan legislation. There have been no jobs bills, no fiscal stimuli, nothing.

I would like for someone to explain to me what exactly be in a jobs bill. Magic jobs dust?

Didn't we blow like $890,000,000,000 for "infastructure jobs" and "green jobs" a couple years ago? Where the f--k are they?

The Dems ran the house and Senate for four years with the White house for 2 of those four years. The Republicans have the House and just got to town 2 months ago. Do any of you libs have any idea how stupid you sound asking John Beohner where the jobs are?

The economic anlaysis shows something different then what cable news fed you, kid.

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies: -- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent, -- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points, -- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and -- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies: --Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent, --Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points, --Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and --Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

Didn't we blow like $890,000,000,000 for "infastructure jobs" and "green jobs" a couple years ago? Where the f--k are they?

See above.

The Dems ran the house and Senate for four years with the White house for 2 of those four years. The Republicans have the House and just got to town 2 months ago. Do any of you libs have any idea how stupid you sound asking John Beohner where the jobs are?

Not so stupid when one of the first things he does is put forth a sybolic, politically motivated CR that has been found to kill jobs.

I have yet to see the connection between jobs and less taxes OR government spending. I hear that argument all the time, but show me the data that PROVES less taxes produce more jobs or less government spending produces more jobs. Please, I'm dying to find that evidence.

I think you can find plenty of credible evidence suggesting cutting taxes can produce jobs.

I do not think you will find much credible evidence showing cutting spending produces jobs. In fact, we have some that shows it kills jobs.

We are spending way too much money for almost non-existent economic recovery. Is there a part of the term "unsustaiable budget deficits" that eludes you? Am I to put my faith in "we'll wait to make cuts when times are better"? Can you name one year when the federal government spent less than it did the year before?

We are spending way too much money for almost non-existent economic recovery. Is there a part of the term "unsustaiable budget deficits" that eludes you? Am I to put my faith in "we'll wait to make cuts when times are better"? Can you name one year when the federal government spent less than it did the year before?

So back to my question.

Why then do you support the GOP's symbolic cuts that will do nothing to solve our long term debt problem?

Why do you support cuts that will hurt the economy, and thus, make it harder to deal with the debt problem?

Wouldn't it be better to pass a clean CR, and then move on to real actions to bring down the debt?

It is going to be pretty hard to link the two because i anything cutting spending costs jobs. That is not to say that it is a bad thing to do we need to cut spending to get the budget under control but pretending that it is in some way about creating jobs is just lying.